Case Details: R.C. Gupta vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur (2025) 35 Centax 185 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Binu Tamta, Member (J) & P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- Shri Vijay Kumar, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Ms Jaya Kumari, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant is engaged in providing of renting of motor vehicle services, paid service tax on 60% of the service value under reverse charge and filed a refund claim on the abated 40%. The assessee submitted that the refund was admissible despite not challenging the original self-assessment. The Commissioner (Audit) disallowed the refund, leading the assessee to approach the CESTAT to determine if a refund could be claimed without challenging the initial assessment. The matter was placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the refund cannot be sanctioned without modifying or challenging the original self-assessed liability. Self-assessed returns constitute a valid assessment, which cannot be questioned in refund claims unless challenged through statutory appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in favour of the revenue, reaffirming that refund on abated value cannot be allowed without appealing the original assessment.
List of Cases Cited
- Sarojben Khusalchand v. Commissioner — 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 159 (Tribunal) — [Paras 2, 4] Relied on
- Commissioner v. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel — 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1146 (Tribunal) — [Paras 2, 4] Relied on
- Anil Saini v. Commissioner — 2017 (51) S.T.R. 38 (Tribunal) — [Paras 2, 4] Relied on
- Commissioner v. Luxmi Chaurasia — 2017 (49) S.T.R. 541 (Tribunal) — [Para 2] Referred
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 [Paras 2, 4]
- Notification No. 8/2008-S.T., dated 1-3-2008 [Paras 2, 4]
